New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

Good faith is a subjective not objective so a court can't say whether it has been met or not.

This isn't true. Good faith negotiation is a legal term. There are court cases all over the place with good faith negotiations listed as a term. Saying it's subjective is throwing aside the importance of this clause.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Not calling anybody or any city crap but it was released that the suites at EJD were only 2/3 sold last year. And they have said the market survey showed very little corporate support. It's been said many times that suite sales and local business sponsorship is more important to pro teams than ticket sales. It's a problem for the Rams in St. Louis.

I'm sure those numbers are accurate (I'll assume so)... maybe, just maybe, the team's performance had something to do with that?

Me: Hey, Oldie... as a gesture of my appreciation for doing business with me this year, how about I have you to our suite at The Ed to watch the Rams? Yeah, I know, they haven't seen .500 for over a decade... but we'll have a good time!!

Oldie: Thanks, but I think I'm supposed to have a hang nail removed Sunday... appreciate the thought, though!!

Me: (sigh)... maybe it's time to sell this suite. Sure wish the Rams were as compelling an attraction as they were when they were winning...

 

[The Ripper]

Your still not making sense or at least your argument isn't clear to me.

A court can say whether good faith is met - yes it is subjective....but a court CAN rule on it...courts rule on subjective terms in contracts all the time.

Yes, the entire Rams history in STL will be part of the good faith discussion -"if" the NFL cares. If the Rams are allowed to move lets be honest it will be pretty rubber stamp and be very limited in the reasoning given they will say something like "the Rams made all reasonable efforts but in the end no satisfactory solution could be found - and STL will not be happy but not be able to do anything.

The only way issues of the lease get brought up, besides on sites like this, is if the Rams are blocked in a move and it goes to court and for some reason they fight oveer the good faith effort requirement of the NFL bylaws as opposed to the much more likely AT arguments. IF they did go that way though, while I am sure the lease would be raised as a factor, I can promise you that Kroenkes lawyers aren't going to say the lease said we could move anywhere and the NFL approved the lease so the lease met their good faith requirement all by itself. Once again they will bring up the lease, but that isn't going to be the end all be all of the arguement.

Not really seeing what you are getting at with the precedent on enforcing leases...the CVC will have no action here and no way of stopping the Rams leaving as far as I can tell...so no action will go to court regarding the breaking of the lease...and the NFL wouldn't be trying to enforce a lease (At least not directly it might be an end result...odd as that is).

This isn't true. Good faith negotiation is a legal term. There are court cases all over the place with good faith negotiations listed as a term. Saying it's subjective is throwing aside the importance of this clause.

The courts have already ruled that subjective guidelines can't be used prevent a move. The Senate Judiciary said the same thing. The relocation rules are not part of the bylaws so they can be changed at anytime. The other factors, which good faith and exhaust are all options, are just things to be considered. The NFL won't be enforcing the lease but the lease was amended in 2007 and the NFL knew what the process was so if they had in issue it would have been changed. It's important because there are other similar provisions in other team leases so if the NFL doesn't apply it here what will happen in Houston or Cincinnati when the time comes.

I agree with that it won't be the only consideration. It will come down to the financials and the plan for Inglewood compared with the entire financial plan for St Louis.

 

[ChrisW]

The courts have already ruled that subjective guidelines can't be used prevent a move. The Senate Judiciary said the same thing.

Can I see where you got this from? Was it the Al Davis move?

 

[The Ripper]

Can I see where you got this from? Was it the Al Davis move?

Raiders 1 decision. The part about the Senate came from the Judiciary hearings in 1996. The document is long but I will try to find the section but it will take some time. The relocation guidelines that applied to the Rams start at section 297 and go into Taglibue's letter to the NFL's Executive Committee. The part about subjective guidelines is either in the beginning from the testimony or in the NFL's responses from one of the senators letters.


http://archive.org/stream/professionalspor00unit/professionalspor00unit_djvu.txt

Here's the PDF version
https://ia802708.us.archive.org/5/items/professionalspor00unit/professionalspor00unit.pdf

 

[dbrooks25]

Not calling anybody or any city crap but it was released that the suites at EJD were only 2/3 sold last year. And they have said the market survey showed very little corporate support. It's been said many times that suite sales and local business sponsorship is more important to pro teams than ticket sales. It's a problem for the Rams in St. Louis.

No, it's not a problem for the Rams in St. Louis. Very little corporate support has a lot to do with the product on the field along with Kroenke positioning to move. As Goose posted earlier, Peacock has already been working to secure corporate sponsorship for the new stadium so that is not an issue. We shouldn't even be having this discussion about support, not with this team and this city. It's pretty simple: Put a winning product on the field, and corporate support will be there. Also, if the new stadium is built, corporate support will be there as well. The Rams know this, that's for sure.

 

[iced]

Not calling anybody or any city crap but it was released that the suites at EJD were only 2/3 sold last year. And they have said the market survey showed very little corporate support. It's been said many times that suite sales and local business sponsorship is more important to pro teams than ticket sales. It's a problem for the Rams in St. Louis.

it's also been said many times corporations are unwilling to renew without a commitment from kroenke to the city

 

[dbrooks25]

It does seem like the polite shots at St Louis are increasing. You know, how we might be suitable for an expansion team when we lose the real team, no businesses here, stocked with slimy politicians subverting the mostly dead silent voters, irresponsible for not having a backup stadium plan in 2005, and so on. It seems pot and kettle to me, seeing as how the Rams have used most of the same excuses 20 years ago leaving the town they are trying to come back to.

They left LA 20 years ago for greed, and they are returning from ST Louis for the same reason. That's it, and that's all.

I know, and it's really starting to piss me off. Most of us refrain from even talking negatively about LA, and for myself it's because trashing another city won't do anything for me. There are things that can be said about LA, but I'm not worried about that city. I'm only worried about my city and and what the task force here is doing to keep the team.

 

[fearsomefour]

And I think that's one of my biggest problems too. Some people actually believe moving to LA will give them more success on the football field. If Kroenke could make more money in another 20 years in a different city, you better believe he would try to move again.

This is probably true, but, there won't really be a city. Particularly if he is primary owner or sole owner of the building. Success on the field/ticket sales is really way down the list in terms of potential earnings.

 

[69superbowl]

My beloved Rams have been a bad, bad team for a long time. Since 1990 this important NFL franchise has exactly 4, four, IV winning seasons - all in St. Louis. 99, 00, 01, 03. That is roughly a winning season rate of 15% for most of three decades. Horrific. It's not the city, the stadium, the grass/plastic, fans, cab drivers, beer vendors... It's the desire of ownership to put a winning product on the field.

My beloved Los Ramos have only 4 winning seasons in the last twenty-five, 25, XXV. It's an embarrassment and it rests on the golden desk in the velvet suite of yet another owner who doesn't give a s hit about the fans. The Peach taught E. Stash well. It's all about the money honey.

With the awesome display of losing the last 3 games of the losing 2014 season, my franchise has an all time record of 533-533-21. I don't care where they play. I'm a Ram fan. Let's hope things go well in week one and this can be a winning franchise again, for at least another week.

 

[Legatron4]

My beloved Rams have been a bad, bad team for a long time. Since 1990 this important NFL franchise has exactly 4, four, IV winning seasons - all in St. Louis. 99, 00, 01, 03. That is roughly a winning season rate of 15% for most of three decades. Horrific. It's not the city, the stadium, the grass/plastic, fans, cab drivers, beer vendors... It's the desire of ownership to put a winning product on the field.

My beloved Los Ramos have only 4 winning seasons in the last twenty-five, 25, XXV. It's an embarrassment and it rests on the golden desk in the velvet suite of yet another owner who doesn't give a s hit about the fans. The Peach taught E. Stash well. It's all about the money honey.

With the awesome display of losing the last 3 games of the losing 2014 season, my franchise has an all time record of 533-533-21. I don't care where they play. I'm a Ram fan. Let's hope things go well in week one and this can be a winning franchise again, for at least another week.

Bingo. I can't wait till this is over so we can get back to winning some damn football.

 

[RamFan503]

That low flying plane just keeps buzzing right over your head.

Knock this shit off.

 

[RamFan503]

When did the St Louis metro area start losing businesses? We've got plenty. The city may be Idk, but drive 5 minutes and you'll find plenty. Drive 15 min down I64 to the west county and you'll find nothing but construction on new stores and businesses. The reason the Rams have little corporate support is because they lose games, they lose them in sloppy undisciplined ways, and the owner treats pretty much everyone like an unimportant subordinate. To say it's because we don't have enough business is a smear job. It's a narrative apparently being bought into by some. I don't know if it fits people's preconceived notions of how a Midwest city is, or it makes people feel better about their chances of getting our team, but if the lack of businesses narrative had any basis in fact the Blues and the Cardinals would also have problems. Shockingly, they do not. Want monetary support from business? Try having a winning season once every decade or so. Try working the room. Just saying, "I'm Stan Kroenke, buy boxes for my team but don't speak to me or talk to me directly" doesn't work. Surprisingly, deleted who owns the losingest team in this century doesn't do much for other executives.

Very good post right up to that last line. I'm beggin' yuh man. At no time have we allowed members to call people currently in the organization names or derogatory terms. I'm not going to keep reminding people of this fact no matter how good their takes may otherwise be.

 

[bluecoconuts]

No, it's not a problem for the Rams in St. Louis. Very little corporate support has a lot to do with the product on the field along with Kroenke positioning to move. As Goose posted earlier, Peacock has already been working to secure corporate sponsorship for the new stadium so that is not an issue. We shouldn't even be having this discussion about support, not with this team and this city. It's pretty simple: Put a winning product on the field, and corporate support will be there. Also, if the new stadium is built, corporate support will be there as well. The Rams know this, that's for sure.

So how does the NFL know that corporate support won't dry up if the team goes into another slump? A new building would bring out fans and corporate support, but once the honeymoon period ends, then what? How does St Louis ensure that corporate support remains after? That is a big question that they will need to answer, and you can't point to the product on the field. No team stays good forever.

 

[tahoe]

So how does the NFL know that corporate support won't dry up if the team goes into another slump? A new building would bring out fans and corporate support, but once the honeymoon period ends, then what? How does St Louis ensure that corporate support remains after? That is a big question that they will need to answer, and you can't point to the product on the field. No team stays good forever.

The same exact thing can be said for LA, once the honeymoon is over and they still aren't winning the corporate support will go away there too. LA is a very fickle town and much less forgiving than St Louis is so one could argue that its much riskier than St Louis is.

 

[ChrisW]

So how does the NFL know that corporate support won't dry up if the team goes into another slump? A new building would bring out fans and corporate support, but once the honeymoon period ends, then what? How does St Louis ensure that corporate support remains after? That is a big question that they will need to answer, and you can't point to the product on the field. No team stays good forever.

Please tell me you don't call 10 years of losing football in a row a slump. Half that may be a slump, but a slump shouldn't last longer than 4 years that a rebuild takes. We've been through some shitty teams as fans including multiple rebuilds. That's not a slump.

 

[RamFan503]

No... but, if we're comparing transparency between Kroenke and Spanos (which - correct me if I'm wrong -- was the topic at that moment), it's apples and oranges.

Not sure what you consider transparent about what Spanos has been doing for about a decade. Even though he has spoken, he has said virtually nothing of substance. Is subterfuge considered transparent? I'm not defending Stan here. I'm just saying that Spanos has been anything but transparent and his yap dog has been an expert at deflection. As I said before, given the choices between Spanos sending Fabiani out there to shit on everything and what Stan is doing, I'd take Stan's method any day and twice on Sundays. Do I still want Stan to come out and say something publicly? Hell yes.

 

[MrMotes]

Transparency?

Nobody has any idea what Spanos is up to or what his end game really is.

Most everybody believes Kroenke wants to move to L.A.

It seems to me that Kroenke's intentions are way more transparent, far clearer than Spanos...

 

[RamFan503]

@tahoe There is no nice way to put this. Call out either the LA or St Louis fan base again and you will be bounced from this thread. This is the most fundamental rule of this thread.

 

[tahoe]

@tahoe There is no nice way to put this. Call out either the LA or St Louis fan base again and you will be bounced from this thread. This is the most fundamental rule of this thread.

I say that LA can be a fickle town and I get threatened to be dumped but LA guys spew untrue crap about St Louis all over the place and nothing is said? I wasn't even calling out the LA fans... All I was saying is that the corporate support can be more fickle because there are so many places that those corporate dollars can be spent.